12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONFOR KING COUNTYEnvision Seattle; Jeff Reifman in hiscapacity as co-organizer of EnvisionSeattle and principal initiative petitioner,Petitioner,vs.CITY OF SEATTLE, aWashington Municipal Corporation,Respondent))))))))))Case No. ________________ RCW 29A.36.090 APPEAL OF BALLOTTITLE
NATURE OF ACTION
Appellant Jeff Reifman is a citizen of the City of Seattle and the State of Washingtonand the principal petitioner of The City of Seattle Initiative Measure 103 concerning localrights and restrictions on corporations to achieve those rights. Mr. Reifman files this petitionon appeal pursuant to RCW 29A.36.090.RCW 29A.36.090 grants “If any persons are dissatisfied with the ballot title for alocal ballot measure that was formulated by the city attorney… they may … appeal to thesuperior court of the county where the question is to appear on the ballot, by petition setting
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
forth the measure, the ballot title objected to, their objections to it, and praying for amendment of it.”Mr. Reifman is dissatisfied with the ballot title assigned by the City Attorney toInitiative Measure 103 because, as further explained below, the title does not comply withthe requirements of SMC 2.08.020. Mr. Reifman requests that the Court transmit a revisedtitle to the King County Director of Elections. A form of revised ballot title accompanies thispetition.Furthermore, Mr. Reifman has negotiated with the City Attorney’s representative, Mr.John Schochet who has tentatively agreed to the proposed revised ballot title. A copy of the full text of Initiative Measure 103 is set forth in Exhibit A.
CITY ATTORNEY’S BALLOT TITLE
The City Attorney has assigned the following ballot title:BALLOT TITLEThe City of Seattle Initiative Measure 103 concerns local rights and restrictions oncorporations to achieve those rights.If enacted, the measure would create a local bill of rights relating to corporateinfluence on elections and the legislative process, water resources sufficient for orcas andsalmon, and zoning changes subject to neighborhood approval, among other issues. Themeasure would prohibit corporations from making political contributions or lobbying,prohibit former elected officials from working for certain corporations, and specify thatcorporations are not persons for purposes of constitutional rights. Any resident may sue toenforce these rights.Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ARGUMENT FOR RELIEF
SMC 2.08.020 states “The statement … shall contain the essential features of suchmeasure expressed in such a manner as to clearly identify the proposition to be voted uponand giving a true and impartial statement of the purpose of such measure, and shall not beintentionally an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, either for or against the measure.”The city’s ballot title contains factual errors and uses generalities when there isspace to specifically enumerate the impacts of the ordinance. At other times, it usesspecifics that may create prejudice against the initiative.The law requires a ballot title without factual errors that clearly states the impact of the measure without creating prejudice. The City Attorney’s ballot title fails these tests.There is no need to settle for a ballot title that might misinform or prejudice voters when it iseasy to provide one that conforms to the law.Factual Errors in the City Attorney’s Ballot Title1. The city’s ballot title states that Initiative Measure 103 would create “water resources sufficient for orcas” whereas the ordinance states it would create the “right toclean water and flows sufficient to protect native fish habitat.” Orcas are not fish nor fishhabitat.2. The city’s ballot title states that Initiative Measure 103 would “prohibit former elected officials from working for certain corporations”. A reasonable voter might believefrom this that elected officials are permanently prohibited from working at designatedcorporations. However, the ordinance prohibition is time-limited and more precise: “electedofficial to seek employment from a Corporation within three years of voting on legislation
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Ballot Title Appeal for Seattle Initiative Measure 103
RCW 29A.36.090 Ballot Title Appeal for Seattle Initiative Measure 103
292
Reads
0
Readcasts
357
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
